1990 vs 2012: The Battle of the Totals Recall

Remakes are a part of life nowadays.

You can truly see how bereft Hollywood is of original ideas. Barely a week has gone by in the last couple of years without a sequel, adaptation, or remake gracing the screen that Friday. It's getting to the point that the Best Original Screenplay award at the Academy Awards is almost null and void. They might as well just give it to Tarantino, regardless of whether or not he even releases a film that year.

I'm not saying that remakes are all in all a bad thing. We've got great films out of the Remake genre (can't believe it's a goddam genre now...). Scorsese's The Departed was a remake of a foreign film; Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead remains one of my favorite zombie flicks; and The Amazing Spider-Man is, in my opinion, better in almost every way to its predecessor. Hell, Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name Trilogy was based on the films of Akira Kurosawa. But that doesn't mean that remakes are going to be a success by default, and neither does the love of the original work. There are some films that just should not be fucked with. The Evil Dead remake, in my opinion, should be damned to developmental hell for eternity.

Many remakes are doomed to fail. Die-hard fans believe that remakes of original films which still hold up today (but are being remade or altered because science!) are for no good reason, and may actually harm the film's original integrity. Go ahead and tell a die-hard Star Wars fanboy that the remastered, CGI-infested, holy-shit-the-sarlacc-has-a-fucking-beak trilogy is better than the original cut. I dare you.

And now, we have Total Recall.

This particular entry isn't a review of sorts, but more a comparison between the shiny new remake released this year and the 1990 original. I'll be forthcoming with any bias I may have towards either, to make it fair. I'll go over the major differing points of both films, and designate which one I feel is the superior of the two. In the end, you can decide for yourself if the new film is worth your time.

1. THE LEADING MAN

1990: Remember what I said about bias? This is what I was talking about, pretty much. Arnold is the fucking MAN in this movie. The late 80's/early 90's were Arnie's prime in film, and this is (or should be) regarded as one of his greatest performances, plastic faces et al. He passes as the 'normal working man' despite being Arnold-fucking-Schwarzenegger, and goes all-out Arnie in the action sequences. Considering he's not exactly considered the Marlon Brando of his time, he did pretty well for having to play several distinct roles in one film. But what make this movie great for me are the one-liners that only Arnold can deliver. If you haven't seen this movie, watch it for the comedic gold alone. 

2012: I've always been a fan of Colin Farrell. He made Daredevil watchable. He was a comedic genius in In Bruges and Horrible Bosses. He was a convincing enough action guy in SWAT. There were times in this film that I appreciated him there over an Arnold-type due to believing that he really could be just a normal guy, and that fit a lot of the film due to how the story plays out differently from the original. There are just two problems I have with this casting: 1) His 'normal guy' look plays the exact opposite to Arnold's, in that it's very hard to believe that he is who he thinks he is, which leads to a certain suspension of disbelief in the film (I know it's a sci-fi flick and suspension of disbelief is pretty mandatory, but bear with me); and 2) As much as I like him, Farrell isn't a very likeable guy. He is cast in a lot of roles as a goddam prick, and he does it well. Minority Report, Daredevil, Phone Booth, Horrible Bosses, Fright Night, and you know...real life, he's unlikeable, and that makes it hard for the audience to get invested. I could see a lot of people watching this movie without getting in the main character's ordeal whatsoever, and that leads to a boring-as-hell moviegoing experience. It's pretty much how I feel when I watch Mad Men most of the time.

Winner: 1990

2. THE LADIES

1990: Speaking of unlikeable, both major female roles in this film, protagonist and antagonist, come off as MAJOR bitches throughout the whole movie. Sharon Stone started off the film hateable, and that was before she started trying to kill Arnold (although maybe that's just my baggage from watching Catwoman. "I've put on so much make-up that I'm nigh-invulnerable!" ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!). Then we go to Rachel Ticotin, Hauser's old partner/hooker. Also unlikeable, also antagonistic towards Arnold while supposedly helping him. The only thing about her that I appreciated was that she held her own in the fights she participated in, but other than that she served little purpose. 

2012: It's hard to argue with Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel in the same movie in terms of attractiveness. Both women did decent enough jobs at what they were there to do. Kate in particular stood out as not only being hotter, but being WAY better than Stone at the same role. In the beginning, it really seemed as though she cared for Quaid and was his wife, leading to true speculation later on in events of the film. And when she was bad, holy shit was she good at it. She was badass all over the place in this. Biel played the supportive partner of Hauser better than the original as well, in that I didn't want to punch her every time she was on screen. She maintained the character's usefulness but seems more critical. Poor Colin would have spent the movie walking around with a confuzzled look about him, going 'Uh, what?' if not for her being there. Also, again, way hotter.

Winner: 2012

3. THE ANTAGONISTS

1990: Ronny Cox must be a bastard in real life because he's so good paying one on the big screen. His performance here as Cohaagen was reminiscent, if not the same damn thing, as his performance as OCP big-bad in Robocop. He's probably a standard-bearer for the 'evil corporate douchebag' role and he shines here, making no bones about his business being of the Chaotic Evil variety. It also helps that his second-in-command is a badass bad-guy extrordinaire Michael Ironside. The second you hear this guy's voice, you know he is not a man with whom to fuck. His voice could probably kick my ass. Watch the Justice League cartoon and listen to Darkseid talk: you know business is serious. He was the bad guy in Free Willy, for fuck's sake. That says something.

2012: This is a tough call for one reason: Walter fucking White. Bryan Cranston is awesome no matter what he's doing, and he follows suit here as Cohaagen 2.0. The main difference here is that he's not so much an outright 'evil corporate douchebag' as he is a political figurehead with some problems to solve, which he plans to do in a not-so-moral kind of way. I find him more realistic and even sympathetic here, and that doesn't necessarily fit the bill for the film. However, the robot cops that work for him are awesome onscreen. I was afraid that this was going to turn into a CGI-fest, but these guys looked great and gave the film an old-school action movie feel.

Winner: 1990


4. THE DIRECTOR

1990: Paul Verhoeven has made some of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time; namely Robocop, Starship Troopers, and the film in question, Total Recall. This guy was way ahead of his time. Robocop in particular looked way better than it had any right to. He also throws in a lot of satire through media presentations in his films, clearly stating he has a bit of a problem with Big Corporate. In my opinion, he did just as good a job with Recall as Ridley Scott did with another Phillip K. Dick adaptation, Blade Runner. Recall wasn't just an sci-fi action flick: it was a pychological thriller that I believe films like Memento and Fight Club have taken notes from. 

2012: I'm not sure why Len Wiseman was chosen to helm the Recall remake given his lack of experience in the sci-fi realm, but he didn't do a half bad job. I'm a fan of his Underworld movies, Kate Beckinsale in tight leather notwithstanding. His direction of Live Free or Die Hard was very meh, but fun in the extremely ridiculous 'John-McClane-fights-a-plane' kind of way. However, this movie really steers from the thriller aspects of Verhoeven's work and goes straight to a shoot-em-up with robots, making it a fun but much more mindless derpy movie. 

Winner: 1990


5. THE LOOK

1990: This movie probably could have looked better. The cyberpunk, rundown, dirty streets of the future were well established, but not as well as the similarly set Blade Runner (which had come out 8 years prior). The vehicles in particular stood out as being clearly unstable and rickety, and not in the rundown, gritty way that Blade Runner made vehicles appear. The mutants are another good example of how aged the film is. The mutated humans of Mars were obviously weighed down in prosthetics and almost took away from the concept. And OH GOD those rubber faces...I laughed so hard...

2012: This was probably the driving force behind remaking this movie at all. It looked fucking great. The vehicles, buildings, and overall atmosphere really did impress upon the audience that, while it was obviously a technologically advanced future world, it was a rundown, damaged, and struggling world. It reminded me of a great mix of The Fifth Element and Minority Report (yet another Phillip K Dick adaptation). And again, the robot police force looked amazing in action as the big threat to the main characters. They moved and interacted with the people onscreen as if they were real, adding to the tension and struggle the characters were going through. 

Winner: 2012


6. THE STORY

1990: Total Recall is one of the great sci-fi mindfuck movies with, not one, but several twists to the plot that were well executed one after the other. This is helped with Arnie looking and behaving both confused and pissed the fuck off throughout the entire film. The emphasis of Phillip K Dick's work regarding the impact and influence of fucking up your mind is all over the place, making it more of the thriller than just the action flick we like to associate Arnie with. I feel that this film is a very well executed thriller as well as a quintessential science fiction story.

2012: It's tough to remake a mindfuck movie. Most of your target audience are going to be fans of the original and therefore know how it ends, which takes away much of the impact. If they ever remake Citizen Kane (I'm sure it's coming...) most of the audience isn't exactly going to be going, "I wonder what the fuck he means by 'Rosebud'". So remaking a film of this sort is tricky business. Thankfully, Recall 2.0 tells the intrigue and mindfuckery of the original to go fuck itself. This movie is, as stated before, a straight up action flick, plain and simple. However, this simplicity makes the film much more predictable and because of that, less enjoyable. Going into this movie, I was hoping for something more; maybe not the exact same things as the original, but something to surprise me. This movie was easy to follow, told a decent story in a sci-fi setting, and was totally not what I was looking for in a Total Recall remake. Most importantly, it misses the point of the original: the effects of playing tricks on the mind. This movie plays out more like The Bourne Identity than Total Recall. If I wanted to see that, I'd stay home and watch Matt Damon beat people unconscious with phone books.

Winner: 1990

7. THE RATING

1990: I know the rating of a film seems a little trivial to nitpick over, but trust me, it's a big deal nowadays. Action, sci-fi and horror films in particular have suffered greatly due to the impact of the MPAA meddling in the filmmakers' affairs. More than a 'fuck' or two guarantees millions in profits lost due to a hard R-rating, much less the gore and nudity that made these genres great. But I digress. The 1990 film was made in a different time, and got away with more bang for your buck in terms of content, mainly coarse language. It was glorious. Listening to Arnold curse is like music to me. I loved it. The film also contained more brutal violence, imposing a darker atmosphere on an already dark tone. I miss movies like that.

2012: The PG-13 rating on the remake led to pretty much the circle jerk of violence being present but not as brutal or prominent as it could have been. The language was toned down significantly, of course, which does the film an injustice considering the main character's dialogue should consist of 'what the fuck?' and 'bullshit.' throughout the film. I was a little disappointed in Wiseman in regards to the rating, considering the Underworld films were R-rated and did much more for me in these aspects. 

Winner: 1990

8. THE THREE-BOOBED HOOKER

1990: Featured in several scenes, but obviously prosthetic. Also the woman herself was a bit of a butterface.

2012: MUCH better looking in every way, but blink and you'll miss her.

Winner: Everyone

FINAL SCORE: 1990 - 5  /  2012 - 2

There you go, folks. Of course, the original was better. It typically is. I'm not saying don't go see the remake of Total Recall. It's a decent sci-fi flick with some great action that looks awesome and features attractive women in leading roles. It's also, however, a shining example of Hollywood's desire to cash in on popular work without having to come up with anything new, and things like ratings castrating the newer films aren't doing people any favors. 

Then again, you try and go original and you get Battleship. No wonder remakes happen. 

Knight Owl

Review of The Dark Knight Rises: Let's Not Stand On Ceremony, Here.

And here...we...go.

It's been over two weeks since my last post coinciding with the release of The Dark Knight Rises. There are several reasons behind the lateness of this overdue post that I have been looking forward to writing. First and foremost, I didn't want to launch into an overemotional and uncontrolled diatribe regarding the tragedy in Colorado. On the other hand, it would be wrong of me to say I wasn't affected by it, or to not acknowledge it, so here goes the summary of my feelings towards this event:

• My deepest sympathies go out to the victims and their families, whose only wrongdoing was to go to a midnight showing of a film they could have only been extremely excited for, a sentiment I can easily sympathise with. 
• I can't even imagine how Nolan and company reacted to the horrible news that yet another work of art is shrouded in tragedy. Four years ago, the world lost Heath Ledger during the post-production of The Dark Knight, which is widely recognised as 'the film that killed Heath Ledger'. Understandably, Nolan had second thoughts about doing the third film at all based upon how Ledger's death affected him. Now we'll have TDKR as 'the film when the Aurora shootings happened'. That sucks, and I can only hope that the artists responsible for this film do not in any way consider themselves responsible.
• Fuck this fit-for-a-straitjacket, thinks-the-Joker-has-red-hair douchebag sideways and send him to the special hell. The End.

OK, out of my system. Now on to the good bits.

Four years ago, The Dark Knight revolutionised the 'Comic Book Movie' and the 'Summer Blockbuster' in two and a half glorious hours of screen time. It showed that, while straying from the source material, a comic adaptation can truly be a legitimate work of film. It shed new light on and innovated classic characters, specifically the iconic Joker, brought to us by Ledger in an Oscar winning performance in a way never seen before by an audience. The film was made even more notorious, again, by the death of Ledger, catapulting TDK into instant cult status. This film is one of my all-time favourites and should be considered one of the best films ever made. 

Now, how can a sequel live up to that? Quick answer is that it doesn't.

Seriously, there was no way TDKR wasn't going to be overhyped. The follow up to a film like TDK is dangerous work and is likely to disappoint the most loyal of fanboys the first time through, present company included. I had no idea what I was walking into that Friday afternoon (Hey, Galaxy Cinemas: suck a dick for not having midnight showings) and after having seen it, had no idea how I felt about it. Of course people in my life started throwing out their problems with the film, some of which I agreed with, but I wouldn't let them influence my feelings towards the film. I just hadn't figured out what those feelings were.

And so I went again...and again...and again...and again.

Five showings of one film later, I have my answer for you, my dear readers. But first let's go through the little things.

The movie looked perfect. I even found the scenes, especially at night, clearer than it's predecessors. The score was also on par with the previous films, with the ominous chanting making its appearance poignantly throughout. It made every scene in which it appeared seem more...important, I guess you could say.

The mainstays do their work well here. Bale continues on as my favourite non-animated Batman; and Caine, Freeman, and Oldman deliver with all the poise you'd expect, all giving established characters a humbled realism that refreshingly stray from their roots as comic book characters. The dilemmas these normal people face are reacted to very understandably and realistically, especially in regards to Alfred's relationship with Bruce. The comic fanboy might watch some of the things that happen in this film and scream 'THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN', but sit down and think for a goddamn second. In the realest of worlds where Batman exists, things would totally go down this way.

The new people are what make this movie different from Begins and TDK, in both good and bad ways. I've heard criticisms regarding Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Catwoman as being too much of a 'good guy', to which I say pick up any comic book with Catwoman in it for the last, oh I don't know, 20 years. Catwoman is the quintessential True Neutral character for the DC universe. Yes, her origins began as a villain, and she can still be one at times, but she typically does what's in her best interests, and that usually means not fucking around with the Goddamn Batman. Joseph Gordon Levitt was also great in this as the jaded cop looking to help, and was probably the most relatable character on the list. Did the movie focus too much on him? I'll get to that later. 

Bane. I could talk for days about how much I loved this guy. When I first heard that Bane was headlining the last of Nolan's Batfilms, two things came to mind:

1. Whaaaaaaaaaa?
2. The back breaking scene best be in this movie.

The voice threw me off for the first viewing of the film, but upon revisiting, it grew on me. I can certainly understand why people didn't appreciate it, but like Bane himself, it was a necessary evil. The appearance of Bane in his mask and quasi-mechanical voice just screams intimidation. You see this guy on the streets and you'd go, 'Haha, OK, time to go.' But for the purpose of this film, he couldn't just be that guy. He had to be able to convey emotion, garner trust, and be empathetic in the eyes of the people he was taking rule of in order to influence them. The inflections in his voice remind me of good ol' Patrick Stewart (fitting considering Tom Hardy played Stewart's clone in Star Trek Nemesis), and really, who would you rather have in control of your city than Capt. Picard or Professor X?

Do I shake my finger at Bane for not being fuelled by super-steroids? Absolutely not. That would be the same as getting pissed that Joker wasn't the result of throwing a gangster into a vat of chemicals. It's comic book ridiculous in a film embracing realism, and venom had no place in it. I think that if people were disappointed by Bane, it's because he wasn't Joker. But like I said before, there's no living up to those standards. He was a fitting villain for the story told in TDKR, and an awesome one at that.

Now I'll get to the story itself. The problems I originally had with this plot were closely tied to the hype the film had following TDK. It was long, unnecessarily convoluted, and let's face it: there didn't seem to be a lot of Batman. I do still think that Bane's plan to manipulate and lull the citizens of Gotham into a false sense of hope was unnecessary considering he was just going to blow them up regardless, but since that's the way the story went, it was well put together. I also don't feel comfortable with the '8 years later' aspect of the beginning of the film as I feel it was used as a crutch to pull a Chris Benoit on Ledger's Joker, striking him from the records and pretending it didn't happen rather than honour his memory in some fashion. They go on and on about Harvey Dent, but no mention of the man that drove him to what he became. It's a little thing that really wasn't needed in this film, but it drove me nuts nonetheless. Now, I mentioned the thing with the John Blake character being featured a little too much, considering he's brand new and unestablished in the Batman lore. The first viewing, this pissed me off. Again, with every viewing, I got more OK with it simply because the character played an important role in proving some of the crucial points overarching the trilogy. Also, it was nice to have a relatable character in all this mess, and Gordon-Levitt did a great job being that guy, with a fresh perspective similar to that of the audience.

The biggest complaint I've heard is regarding the lack of Batman throughout the film. In a near three-hour long film, you have maybe 30 minutes of Bats. On paper, that sucks, but here's the thing. This is not an individual movie, like other threequels can be. It is a conclusion to a single story that began with Batman Begins, was continued in TDK, and this is how it ends. Also, you need to recognise that this is not even how it was supposed to end. The final film was to again follow Joker and the rise of the super villain, in one form or another, but it was not to be. As far as back-up endings go, this one's pretty damn good. This film takes important elements of the previous movies and brings them around full circle. It's one long story split up, not three different stories, and therein lies why it's OK for Batman to not be in as much of this film. Look at Lord of the Rings, for example. Those are three excruciatingly long films all surrounding a ring, but neither that ring or it's bearer are on screen for more than half of the series' running time. Everyone was talking about it, motivated by it, and there was no question the story was about this ring. In this scenario, Batman is the fucking ring. 

The film won me over with the portrayal of certain scenes that I found epic beyond words and consider to be some of the greatest scenes in a movie that I've ever witnessed. The Gotham bombing comes to mind, with the collapsing of the football field and destruction of the bridges. The moment during the National Anthem where Bane says 'That's a lovely, lovely voice' I find humanises a character that didn't have much humanity in him, and I appreciated it. The conclusion of the film had an emotional impact on me, as anyone who knows me could assume. It spoke to me in many ways as a fan of the character and lore. But the hero of the day here was the first encounter between Bane and Batman. The scene as portrayed in the comics is built up as this great confrontation between Bats and a villain he barely knows who can match him mentally as well as physically, a match that he has never seen up to that point. The face-off was extremely well built up and tension filled, up to the finish with Bane breaking Batman's back. It is one of the most iconic scenes in the character's lore and one of my favourite Bat-moments. I was almost worried that this was not to be included in this film once learning of Bane being cast, but I was pleasantly surprised. The meeting between Batman and Bane, from the dark sewer environment, to the silence of the background, the sounds of the fight itself, everything created this severely intense moving picture. The entire time I was amazed by how this scene came together, and kept thinking 'Jesus Christ, he's getting his ass kicked...', not something a fan is used to thinking about in regards to the Dark Knight. It fucking delivers, and made me so very happy.

In conclusion, I feel that TDKR suffers from 'Star Wars Syndrome', which is a thing I just invented (you're welcome). Return of the Jedi was great, and a terrific ending to the story, but The Empire Strikes Back was the better movie. The same is true here. For the story that was told from start to finish, TDKR was a great conclusion. Every important point that has been stressed throughout the films was established here. The ideals of the Batman carry on, regardless of Bruce Wayne's actual involvement. Balance and Justice can be attained without going to extremes. It was as real an ending as it could be considering the source material, and I'm glad to see it end because it should, and not because it just couldn't make money any more. So many franchises, TV shows especially, drag on after their prime just because there is still some money in it. Nolan ended this series the way he wanted it and saw that it was done.

Now, as I predicted, they are already talking about a reboot of the series, but straying from this and going back to a more sci-fi/fantasy way of going about things. I'll look forward to that, but am more than happy to see my favourite character of all time portrayed in this fashion.

Thank you, Christopher Nolan. Keep doing things.

Knight Owl